One reason is ​that they ask ​different ​questions. IARC ​evaluates the ​hazard of a ​chemical—​in this case, ​whether it ​could cause ​cancer. It does ​not ask how ​likely that is ​to happen, or ​in how many ​people. ​Regulatory ​agencies like ​EFSA also ​evaluate the ​risk of harm, ​depending on ​factors such as ​the toxicity ​and the way ​people are ​exposed to a ​chemical. Given ​the trace ​amounts of ​glyphosate that ​people ​typically ​ingest, EPA and ​other ​regulators have ​concluded that ​glyphosate is ​not likely to ​cause cancer or ​other harm. ​IARC noted ​“limited ​evidence” ​of a cancer ​risk to farm ​workers, but ​regulators have ​not been ​convinced that ​glyphosate is a ​danger there ​either. ​

What happens next?

So far ​there's ​been a deadlock.​ The decision ​was in the ​hands of the ​Standing ​Committee on ​Plants, Animals,​ Food and Feed (​PAFF), which is ​made up of ​representatives ​from the ​European ​Union's 28 ​member states. ​But PAFF has ​failed to reach ​a majority in ​several past ​meetings, even ​as the ​proposals were ​scaled back to ​ever-shorter ​reapproval ​periods for ​glyphosate. ​ On 23 June, ​an appeals ​committee will ​vote. It may ​decide to renew ​the approval ​for a short ​period, say 1 ​year, to keep ​glyphosate ​available while ​the debate ​continues. ​Without a ​qualified ​majority ​deciding to ​renew, the ​approval will ​expire on 30 ​June, and the ​compound will ​have to be ​taken off the ​market in all E.​U. countries. ​